Why is curlcoat allowed to troll on here?

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Carol_Stream

AFAIK, none of the UHC proposals include payroll tax increases. They do include income tax increases, which people like torie probably don’t pay. Yet she supports UHC, which to people like her, is getting something for nothing.

Who’s getting the free ride again?

I didn’t ask you about UHC proposals. Let’s go back, shall we?

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]

Government is paying for health care, which is outrageously, criminally fucking expensive, while torie and her husband better themselves so they can eventually pay more taxes and improve their lives, so they never need government assistance again. See how different that sounds when you don’t phrase so snidely?
[/QUOTE]

No, the “government” isn’t paying for healthcare, the taxpayers are. And as much as 46% of the population doesn’t pay federal income taxes, at all. Of course, they want “free health care”, why wouldn’t they? Something for nothing, and your chicks for free.

You don’t see a problem with that?
[/QUOTE]

The health care torie’s family is receiving is paid for via Medicaid, which exists independently of the UHC proposals. I don’t see how **torie **and her husband are getting something for nothing seeing as how they are both productive, employed individuals contributing to other social programs such as social security, disability, and unemployment insurance.

Why are you so desperately trying to associate **torie **with the “welfare queens” you people are always bitching about. Clearly, she’s rightly taking advantage of a social program that’s intended to be there for just her situation. And yet, because she’s able to benefit from a program such as this, she can also take every available opportunity she can manage to find to improve her skills and education and subsequently reduce/eliminate the need to ever again rely on those benefits to meet basic family needs. Win-win.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Harborwolf

I’ve seen it, and it’s certainly frustrating. Doesn’t make her a troll - a word which is rapidly being rendered meaningless through overuse. Maybe if the tone of the posts containing the facts was changed, the discussion would be milder. As always, ymmv.

Fair enough, you don’t think it.
I do..and I even agree with you that the word “troll” is being rendered meaningless through overuse.
There are only two posters (right now) on this whole board I think the word applies to. Both I’m convinced are just here merely to push peoples buttons, garner reactions, derail topics either by making it all about them or the issues they raise, and mostly be a jerk (or willfully obtuse/misleading) just because they can.

To me, that is the actual defintion of a troll. I always thought that’s what the universal definition was. To me, curlcoat fits that…but I could understand how some (like yourself) may just find her frustrating and not actually trollish. : )

[Carol_Stream]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

I didn’t ask you about UHC proposals. Let’s go back, shall we?

She brought up her support for UHC. Which is easy for her to support, since under the current proposals, she won’t be paying a red penny for it. Personally, I’d advocate for Mai Tais and Chippendale dancers, if I knew I didnt have to pay.

[tumbleddown]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

Her family has the capability, but chooses not to for their own convenience. Until her husband can find a job that provides insurance she could choose to work and obtain medical coverage.

Which presumes that at a time when we’re nearing double-digit unemployment (and are already there in some states and twice over in some specific localities) that such a job would be available to her within her skillset, on a schedule that works with her family’s needs or pays enough to justify doing the work and paying for care for two small children. That’s a lot of conditions to meet just for health insurance. It points out the absolute utter insanity of linking health insurance to employment to begin with.

I’m not saying forgo education forever, just until they are able to afford all of their bills.

And if both of them are working and trying to raise two small kids, when exactly are either of them supposed to improve their education or experience sufficiently to begin to earn more money in sufficient quantities that either of them could quit to go to school full time?

I’m still just not understanding how a making a good living = not being able to pay for your family’s needs, but no one can answer that except for torie

It’s really rather easy. They have a place to live. They have food to eat. They have transportation and clothing. Perhaps not extravagances in any of those areas, but adequate for their day to day lives. They don’t live in privation or squalor. Their kids don’t have health insurance. Millions of kids in America do not. It’s not a need in the same fashion as every day requirements for living. They won’t go hungry or cold or get sick because they don’t have insurance (though they might get sicker if they don’t have it and can’t get care when they need it). And it’s sufficiently expensive that millions more American families, some lower to middling middle class are still reliant upon the S-CHIP program to provide subsidized insurance for their kids. There are a lot of families who are doing all right, who aren’t struggling, but still cannot pay for insurance. And if you want to lay blame on that, talk to United Healthcare’s CEO and ask him how he enjoyed making $12,000,000 last year. A million bucks a month. That’s roughly $1,366 an hour, 24 hours a day. I hope he worked really hard for that money. But only half as hard as the CEO of Aetna worked for his $24 million. Or maybe talk to the people whose doctors recommended one of the 20% of procedures that were denied by insurers in the last year.

@Carol_Stream

If they qualify for Medicaid, it’s almost certain that their federal income tax liability is zero. They probably get money back, through EIC or other provisions.

That’s not necessarily true. Family income limits for children for Medicaid are vastly different than for adults. Their tax liability may not be much, but you cannot presume that they’re paying nothing. And they’re certainly paying into SS and Medicare, which means that certain people are being subsidized by them, regardless.

[Harborwolf]

@Carol_Stream

Personally, I’d advocate for Mai Tais and Chippendale dancers, if I knew I didnt have to pay.

Typical spend spend spend conservative. You know how much those things cost? I’d settle for Guinness and more Hooters restaurants.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Carol_Stream

She brought up her support for UHC. Which is easy for her to support, since under the current proposals, she won’t be paying a red penny for it. Personally, I’d advocate for Mai Tais and Chippendale dancers, if I knew I didnt have to pay.

It’s obvious you want to avoid answering my question by changing the subject, presumably because your statement was a non sequitur intended to bait. But I’m going to once again ask you to back it up.

The subject is Medicaid. It began with this statement:

[QUOTE=Sleeps with Butterflies]
People can help having children as much if not more than people can help being disabled. By all means, if the children need insurance and don’t have it then they should be covered. Kids can’t help their circumstances. I’m glad that torie and her husband want to improve their situation and learn from it. That’s great. I just don’t see what’s wrong with saying what it is. “Government, pay for our kids while we do other things we’d rather do first.”
[/QUOTE]

To which Rubystreak replied:

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Government is paying for health care, which is outrageously, criminally fucking expensive, while torie and her husband better themselves so they can eventually pay more taxes and improve their lives, so they never need government assistance again. See how different that sounds when you don’t phrase so snidely?
[/QUOTE]

And then you:

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
No, the “government” isn’t paying for healthcare, the taxpayers are. And as much as 46% of the population doesn’t pay federal income taxes, at all. Of course, they want “free health care”, why wouldn’t they? Something for nothing, and your chicks for free.

You don’t see a problem with that?
[/QUOTE]

I’d still like to know what your statement has to do with torie, who is benefiting only from Medicaid which existed before the current UHC proposals. Presuming **torie **was employed prior to her pregnancies and presuming she becomes employed in the future, she did and will contribute income taxes that enables government to provide social programs, including Medicaid. In fact, her husband is currently employed and paying into social programs that others are benefiting from but not paying into. Since torie’s children are his as well, it’s unreasonable to say he is getting something for nothing.

It’s quite obvious that all you’re doing here is crying “welfare queen!” when it’s not really applicable to this situation.

[MeanOldLady]

@dropzone

Wow! I’m about as clueless a poster as can be and even I suspect that might be a whoosh. Maybe.

Kimmy Gibbler (Andrea Barber) was as close to an entertaining castmember as Full House had. She was 15 and surrounded by supposedly professional actors and funny comedians. Just goes to show what a script and a performer who wasn’t coasting until the next payday could do, though the quality of her performance is reflected by the acting work she’s done since, ie: none. OTOH, I knew she’d grow into that face.

I am genuinely confused by this post.

I told the poster Kimmy_Gibbler to stop trolling (which was a joke), and now I think I’m being told about how much the show Full House sucked, but Andrea Barber came somewhat close to being entertaining… maybe. So um, I think I’ll just agree?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@dropzone

Kimmy Gibbler (Andrea Barber) was as close to an entertaining castmember as Full House had. She was 15 and surrounded by supposedly professional actors and funny comedians. Just goes to show what a script and a performer who wasn’t coasting until the next payday could do, though the quality of her performance is reflected by the acting work she’s done since, ie: none. OTOH, I knew she’d grow into that face.

Nope, still oogly. And Full House never came within a million miles of entertaining anyone. Its only value to society was keeping Bob Saget off prime-time.